Why doesn't sheriff speak for himself?

In today's Chicago Tribune story (date-lined May 29) about the latest (fourth?) racial-profiling investigation within the McHenry County Sheriff's Department, reporter D. Hinkel writes, "An attorney for the department said Sheriff Keith Nygren is committed to racial equality. The mislabeling should be attributed to error rather than any plot against minorities, said attorney Jim Sotos." (9:50PM Note: the Tribune article was removed. Because it had the date-line of May 29, I expect it will re-appear on Sunday.)

And "Should (the mislabeling deputies) have done that? No," he (Sotos) said. "Was it proof that these guys were pulling people over because of their race? No."

Taxpayers and McHenry County residents ought to be asking about now, "Why doesn't the sheriff speak for himself? Why does he hire (and pay) Jim Sotos to speak for the Department and for him?"

While an attorney can say that Nygren is "committed to racial equality", that doesn't make it so. And what does "racial equality" have to do with it, anyway? Look at the play on words. By deflecting the issue and avoiding a direct statement, Nygren and his attorney keep the public in the dark.

Remember, Jim Sotos is the attorney representing Nygren in Zane Seipler's civil rights' lawsuit against the sheriff department, the sheriff (personally and as sheriff), and certain named deputies. Think Nygren and Sotos don't put their heads together and decide what to say? And how to say it?

Read Jack Cashill's book, Hoodwinked. Don't blow through it. Read it thoughtfully. Then question everything you read, including the stories in the Northwest Herald, the Daily Herald and the Chicago Tribune. And here. Don't be "hoodwinked".